Best german general of the war

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Yes, the Luftwaffe will make this scenario a little tedious. The only real way to stop this is either come up with an excuse to justify increasing Soviet air group experience, or find a reason for the Luftwaffe, or a big chunk of it, to be elsewhere. Does the scenario start in good weather or bad? Perhaps the Soviets attacking in snow/blizzard would give them an advantage as it reduces the Luftwaffe's influence somewhat (probably not enough) and the Soviets receive a readiness advantage in blizzard conditions?

I made sure the first turn of the scenario was clear when I created it, but with it being May of 1942 the turns include lots of mud sometimes, but other times are mainly clear. I originally used January but that made the Soviets too strong in the beginning, but then that was using the normal WIR. I like your ideas about a disabled Italian front but keeping the west active. That may make for a more balanced scenario. I will give it some thought. Thanks for the input.

[Mist]

I've been off for four days due to conference in St.Petersburg. Now I am back and amazed how had this thread grewn up.

Originaly posted by Lokioftheaesir

The Soviets under Stalin slaughtered tens of millions(as did the chinese latter) and even the pristine US and UK committed their little slaughters to be hidden between lines.

Only SU had lost 27 millions(officialy) in war with Germany and somewhat 20 millions of them were civilian casualities.
Stalin purges were a big contribution into the number of slaughtered civilians under Stalin's iron fist though numbers differ widely. Yes, we had a lot of publications during past 10 years after the fall of communists, and some of them(not all though, so I can't be sure about real data) give realy huge numbers of victims of purges of 33,37,39 years. Hunger in Ukrain in 30ties had also wasted millions and that was particialy Stalin's will to 'create' this hunger because Ukranians weren't willing to give away grewn harvest. Postwas purges were also terrible and whole nations like Crimean Tatars and Chechens(my grandpa with grandgrandma was among them) were sent off to Siberia and many died from hunger and deseases. I don't know anything about peacetime attrocities made by Germany. However my main point is that it is incorrect to compare victims of Germany and USSR war attricities as millions to tens of millions. You may feel this unsignificant at all, so take it as just a little note because I don't want to make a big discussion about this realy dirty side of WWII(who is worse etc).


By the way, about Shliffen vs. Manstein plan topic. They are realy the same nature: ie assymetric operation with turned front in the end. The problem with 'Shliffen' plan was that Moltke was too incompetent to accomplish it due to fear to take risk of such kind of operation. 'Manstein' plan was real Shliffen's plan reflection.

regards

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

[Mist]

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
Hitler and Stalin were in a civilized century and 'civilized warfare/society' has included a much better treatment of civilians/citizens than nomad or primitive tribes.

Matthew, this 'civilised' society had produced two bloodiest wars in human history. So, I don't feel this arguement as forgiving to Chenghiz Khan to be less merciless leader. God knows what could happen had he have modern arms and more people to rule and conquer.

There actions were insane, but when interpreted as apocalyptic, were typical for apocalyptic movements, but again as in the case of Genghiz and the nomads, on a bigger scale than anyone before or since.
But 6 million in the Gas chambers, approx 30 million dead European theatre is a terrible tragedy as is the 140 mn claimed dead for communism this century.

Don't think I am mad about numbers died for Communist/Soviet cause but could I ask you about 140 mns number? What is it including?

As leaders of an apocalyptic movement I think both Hitler and Stalin did go crazy in a meglomanical apocalyptic way, especially in the mass murder of those they percieved as their enemies.
What is most sad, is not their personal madness, but that so many people believed, worshipped their insane ideas.

agree. Can't tell about German society but it was like mass hypnosys amplified by mass fear in USSR. Cummulative effect was so strong that people lived in daily extasy. I was speaking with my grandma and he told me that they loved Stalin so much that they couldn't imaging their life without him. He was like a living God for them.


Mein Kampf is crazy but so too in an intellectual way is the Communist Manifesto or Bolshevik propaganda.

I've read only Manifesto and found it idealistic but not crazy. Is Mein Kampf worth reading?

Stalin as the victor fo the war was amazingly popular considering the tens of millions he killed.

It is easy to explain. People who were taken into prisons did't feel Stalin guilty in that. In opposite, they were writing letters to Stalin to explain that it was mistake to take them to prisons. They thought that Stalin will free them. Relatives of politicaly imprisoned peoples were also imprisoned as 'relatives of enemies'. So, only content peoples were remaining free and happy (untill they suddenly become imprisoned).

The myth of Hitler, and the terrible reality has long been put to rest.
Stalin despite Kruschev Courtois etc is still popular for many in the Soviet Union including I believe Putin who celebtrated his birthday and bought back the Stalinist national hymn.

I did not hear about celebration of Stalin's birthday. Could you enlighten me please?
As for "Stalinist" hymn. It may be "Stalinist" for you there on the west. I personaly am glad that we have hymn again and I don't feel it stalinist. It is a hymn which symbolises all our victories for most of us. Our society is not yet unified and has no national idea at all. Taking old hymn with new words is small step toward society unification, not backward to Stalin times.


That is why I find the reaction to the Suvorov argument so interesting. Not that Suvorov is good - much of his history is terrible, other German historians are much better - but the vehemence with which people react to the idea, despite empirical evidence that the Soviets could have been planning to attack first.
The Nazis are bad, therefore the Soviets could not have been as bad, could not have been planning to attack, and the Nazis were the only bad guys in world war two.
But there often more than one wolf in the forest and I believe that both Nazism and Bolshevism were crazy, dangerous, murderous and tragic movements.
I think the point is not who is bad or good. The real question is whether can we name German attack to USSR as self-defence or was USSR going to attack Germany in 1941. The best way to check it is to use primary sources or at least memories of participants of those events. Suvorov's book is interesting despite of all his mistakes. But it is the last thing to use. When other author uses Suvorov as a source, he must be very carefull with refering to it IMHO.

[VictorH]

Hello Mist,

Reading the history I have, it is pointless to debate whether Stalin intended to attack the West. Read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", he fully intended to attack Russia to wipe out Communism and provide more living space and resources for Germany.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by VictorH:
Hello Mist,

Reading the history I have, it is pointless to debate whether Stalin intended to attack the West. Read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", he fully intended to attack Russia to wipe out Communism and provide more living space and resources for Germany.

After reading "Mein Kampf", read the "Communist Manifesto" and it is inescapably clear that Stalin and his Soviet Union had a mandate to liberate the workers of the world. Then read Stalin's own words from August 19, 1939 and you may find yourself muttering "HOLY S&%$!" as I did.

(I will post the most "unedited", yet English translated version of that speech that I can find.)

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by moi:
Ok.

...

You will excuse for my disgusting English

No reason. Your use of the language is far more understandable for me than the hip hop "prison-ghetto speak" that has been so popular among American youth. Thanks "MTV"! :rolleyes:

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
To Yogi:

...
Yes, destruction of armies was talked about first, but Leningrad and Moscow were explicit targets from the very beginning. Ironically, a person reading the quoted text above might reasonably come away with the idea that Moscow is priority #2, after Leningrad.

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I may be mistaken, but that looks like the orignal plan, Directive 21. In that original plan that was issued in Dec. 1940, he spelled out what you observed with regard to Moscow being a priority after the capture of Leningrad and Kronisburg. There is more caution and deliberate process in this original plan than one would expect of a man of Hitler's post war reputation.

On a more strategic level, his "intentions" of Barbarosa are explicitly

The final objective of the operation is to erect a barrier against Asiatic Russia on the general line Volga-Archangel.

Special attention should be given to Hitler's assumption of a post Barbarosa "Asiatic Russia".

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: JustAGame ]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by JustAGame:
Special attention should be given to Hitler's assumption of a post Barbarosa "Asiatic Russia".

No argument with me here. I was responding to the implication the Germans put all their emphasis on destroying armies and were somehow ambivalent about taking important cities. The generals knew how important Moscow was, and so did Hitler, based on his Directives. There is nothing wrong with Hitler's vision of the endgame, but it would not come about without the fall of Leningrad and Moscow, and those two cities, priorities #1 and #2, had to fall in '41.

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[matt.buttsworth]

Mist, will check out the details of the figures later but the 140 million comes from Stephen Courtois The Black Book of Communism, and inludes causualties from Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe, China and Cambodia (I am not sure about Cuba) from purges, deportations, deaths in labour camps, and man-made famines (Ukraine, China 1956-1958).
The latter is dubious as it was not planned or used as a weapon to wipe out opponents as in teh case of the Ukraine but was an accidental consequence of party policy with its emphasis on the great leap forwards at the expense of agriculutre (similar to Stalin's empahais in the five year plans on industrialisation not agiculture with tens of millions dying).
Thelargest contributitor to the 140 mn dead is China.
Mein Kampf I think is worth reading although much of it is ranting but it is ranting that killed tens of millions, therefore interesting.
Putin was said to have celebrated Stalin's birthday a few years back. I heard it on the radio I think CNN, but it stuck in my mind and I am afraid I cannot give you an exact source.

[Nemesis]

Sorry for not posting in a while. Been away for my (one week) summer holiday.

How about different perspective on Hitler?

Hitler was intelligent and ruthless. He knew exactly what he needed to do to get his party to be the dominant political force in Germany. He was able to annex alot of Lebensraum without firing a shot (Austria, parts of Checkoslovakia, rheinland...), with the expense of his neighbours (UK, France etc.). So, in that sense, he was smart. REALLY smart.

We was excellent speaker. Modern experts have analyzed his speeches, and they agree that he does just about everything right. Sure, it could be argued that he was trained, but all the training in the world isn't going to help if you deep down don't have the ability.

But as a strategist, he wasn't that good. A thought just crossed my mind. Rommel never really lost. Sure, he was beaten badly in El Alamein, but only after Hitler gave one of his infamous "Stand and Die" orders. Rommel wanted to withdraw, but as a loyal soldier, he followed the orders.

As for Hitlers actions in the latter half of the war. Well, there's two things which might explain some of his behavior: first, there's evidence which seems to suggest that he suffered from Parkinsons disease. Now, I don't know that does it cause any psychological problems or not.

And the second reason is his personal doctor, dr. Morell (if I remember correctly). He was incompetent. In the evening, he pumped Hitler full of tranquilizers and in the morning he gave him stimulants. That can't be healthy in the long run.

[moni kerr]

Originally posted by JustAGame:
Just to set the record straight on this matter. If someone was arguing the point that JFK was the best President of the 20th century and substantiated their position by offering that they know several American Democrats online and those Americans emphatically agree, then I would argue that I "hardly consider the objective American Democrats online as credible political scientists". That isn't insulting anyone, but it is pointing out that the expert evidence presented isn't quite so "expert" afterall.

In case the analogy didn't hit home, I will break down the specific instance of my so-called insult. I had stated "We now have evidence that Stalin was already moving his own forces to the border for his own invasion in July of 41." That was followed a comment by someone who said they never heard such a thing and asked where I got that information, among comments by others suggesting the idea as not possible. I presented an article by Joseph Bishop of the Institute of Historical Review wherein he is critiquing Panzers East by Stolfi. In that article, Bishop supports Stolfi's claim that the Soviets were planning their own Barbarosa and cites recent evidence suggesting that Stalin was probably going to launch his own offensive around mid-July. That article made reference Suvurov in that Bishop stated that Stolfi's view "is consistent with the detailed revisionist study by Russian historian Victor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun), Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War, as well as research by several German historians." Anyway, that openend the door for the discussion over whether the Soviets were planning their own Barbarosa. The credibility of the researchers and historians who support the notion of a planned Soviet Barbarosa quickly became a target of those arguing that such a plan never existed.

Specifically, it was stated that "RE: Suvorov
In an entirely different forum (onwar.com) his research was thoroughly trashed by some Russian members of the forum. He apparently has no credibility as an historian, and is more suited to the althistory crowd."

So,
1. SOURCE his research was thoroughly trashed by some Russian members of the forum
2. LOGICAL CONCLUSION He apparently has no credibility as an historian
3. ARGUEMENT is more suited to the althistory crowd

For the arguement to be valid (#3), the conclusion (#2) has to be valid. For the conclusion (#2) to be valid, the source (#1) has to credible and reliable. In simpler terms, the arguement that Suvorov is only more suited to the althistory crowd only holds true if we are convinced that he apparently has no credibility as an historian as evidenced by his research was thoroughly trashed by some Russian members of the forum.

My reply to this arguement was:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm. I wonder what else is more suited to the althistory crowd as opposed to the objectively educated Rusians. I'm not informed enough about Suvorov to claim to be an expert on his credentials, but I hardly find Russians online as credible critics of historians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from the typo, this is far from being an insult to Russians. He established his source as "some Russian members on the forum". Pardon my pointing it out, but the arguement didn't hold. Anyone who believes that the former Soviet Union, Russia, America or you name your nation teaches their history objectively can speak up. Furthermore, anyone who doesn't believe the former Soviet Union and the present day Russia had/has a more closed society than the free world, then please speak up. What is more important, does anyone actually find "Russian members of the forum" (besides the author) as CREDIBLE CRITICS OF HISTORIANS. It is a simple case of disputing the expertise of the evidence. By disputing the credibilty of the source of his conclusion and arguement, I established that this particular arguement isn't valid.

The truth is that "Russians on the internet" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians". The same reasoning holds true that "some (fill in your nationalty) members of the forum" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians".

Perhaps you forgot that my lumping "Russians on the internet" was a direct reference to the post I was replying to in which the author used "some Russian members of the forum" as his source. I wasn't playing word games at all. In fact, I was the only one who was still using it context with the post it was in reply to.

I can play this game too. You have not invalidated my conclusions you have in fact strengthened them.

Your analysis is flawed. An argument is the sum of its parts (premises and conclusions) it is not something by itself. For the argument to be valid the premises and the conclusions must be true. You have not shown them to be untrue.

The statement "Russians on the internet" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians" is not shown to be true. Your logic is flawed. You cannot derive that statement from this one "some (fill in your nationalty) members of the forum" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians". What you can conclude is "SOME Russians on the internet" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians". Either you know little of logic or you are playing word games.

Furthermore you cannot verify that statement empirically until you actually talk to all of the "Russians on the internet" and evaluate them as "credible critics of historians".

So your claim of having proved the falsity of my premise has fallen flat. So has your claim of invalidating the argument.

As for Suvorov he is a former member of the Soviet Intelligence Service and as such he would have received the best non-objective education that the Soviet system could offer. He is therefore by your own criteria "not an objective critic of historians" and very likely on this basis he does not qualify as a "credible historian". Thank-you for strengthening my conclusions.

Add to this the more detailed explanations offered by some others in this thread and my once weak presumtively plausible argument has become stronger.

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by moni kerr:



I can play this game too. You have not invalidated my conclusions you have in fact strengthened them.

The purpose of my post wasn't to revisit your post. Unfortunately, it was impossible for me to put my own post in context without using the post to which it replied. I apologize if you feel it was confrontational.

With regards to arguements you present now, they are not relevant to either my initial reply to your first post or the post you are responding to now. Debating the issue of Suvorov's credibility or the reliability of the questions that he raised among historians was not the point of my post and I don't want to see my points clouded by other issues. I will enjoy that discussion, but for now, I want it to be clear that what I said was far from being an insult to Russians.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by moni kerr:


The statement "Russians on the internet" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians" is not shown to be true. Your logic is flawed. You cannot derive that statement from this one "some (fill in your nationalty) members of the forum" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians". What you can conclude is "SOME Russians on the internet" ARE NOT "credible critics of historians". Either you know little of logic or you are playing word games.

Furthermore you cannot verify that statement empirically until you actually talk to all of the "Russians on the internet" and evaluate them as "credible critics of historians".

So your claim of having proved the falsity of my premise has fallen flat. So has your claim of invalidating the argument.

JustAGame

Sounds pretty tight to me,(empirical death) i think the second paragraph is the killer. I'd bow out on this one.
In fact the second paragraph says it all. If you want to challenge the ideas of historians you must become one yourself. And you have to become a credible historian. If you think the other guy is wrong its no good just saying 'he's wrong' you must undermine his premise or outright destoy it. History is great for this as so few of us alive today were actually there and you had to be there to be more than half way credible(in relation to WW2) historian. We all work on 2nd to 20th hand information, lets all show a little lee-way.
The above is not so much for you JustAgame as i think you know this but there are a lot of teenagers out there who (like i was) walk in deep waters and don't know it.
For example. If we were debating the battle of Granicus (Near modern Galipoli in the time of Alexander) none of us could 'know' what happened. We could debate on interpretations but NON OF US COULD KNOW. (the further back you go the less able you are to undermine a premise, i'd put it at 50-70 years)

An example. (he he)

"Jesus was not crucified"

Please state empirical evidence on answering.

Nick

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


JustAGame

Sounds pretty tight to me,(empirical death) i think the second paragraph is the killer. I'd bow out on this one.
In fact the second paragraph says it all.

...

Please state empirical evidence on answering.

Nick

I didn't want to respond to his arguements directly for the reason I stated, it wasn't relevant to the purpose of my post. However, I will gladly hash over his remarks.

His evidence was specifically the views of "some Russian members on the forum". No matter how much he wants it to be otherwise, that group is not categorically recognized as experts on the topic. He could have said "my friend Bob says" or "my Daddy says" and it would still be true that his source is not recognized as an expert, or in this particular case, as a credible critic of historians. Unless we are given reason to accept the credibility of "my friend Bob", "my Daddy", "some Russians members on the forum" or "Russians on the internet", we will be justly shown by someone of the opposing view that our cited source is a hole in our arguement.

Where I completely agree with him is that "Russians on the internet" is indeed a very large group that is composed of many individuals with whom one would have to qualify each as a credible critic of historians for the entirety of the group to be so recognized. Indeed, when did "some Russians members of the forum" earn a universal recognition of being credible critics of historians? That was the point I was making with my original comment that "Russians on the internet are hardly credible critics of historians."

It was his arguement and incumbant upon him to prove his arguement. Since when have arguements been accepted as true until proven false? Since when have vague sources been granted "credibility" because the author relies upon them?

The irony here is that the purpose of his arguement was to discredit the source referenced in support of an opinion. The truth is that there are numerous critics of Suvurov who are widely accepted as expert enough to be credible critics of historians and they have been published doing just that. That doesn't mean they end the debate over the validity of the question Suvurov has popularized. But we at least have reason, as established by their credentials, that they are presenting reliable information.

The bottom line is that whether I quote him specifically with "some Russians on the forum" or paraphrase with "Russians on the internet" in the lost effort of trying to make the comment less personalized to the author, it is a vague source that enjoys neither universal recognition of expertise nor does he convey any more credentials than that they are "some Russians on the forum". Just as the author was pointing out a credibility issue with someone else's twice removed source, those of the opposing view have every right and should call to question vague sources used to support his views.

My son really loves it when I sing to him. Apparently, I have a wonderful voice and I really should be given a record contract.

[Lokioftheaesir]

JustAGAme

Well it seems to me that the train of logic
on this topic hinges on the use of the word
'credible'. Being credible is a grey area that is open to interpretation from subjective viewpoints,even the most published historian has opponents to his ideas and many of those opponents may be seen a credible. Credibility is also tied in with social peceptions and misconceptions.
IE~ In the late 1800's the Wright brothers would have been perceived by the majority to be slightly nutty and without credibility simply because the majority were out of their conceptual and technical depth.
Thus i feel that the topic is open ended.

Nick

PS. Sing to me. Then i'll decide.

[moni kerr]

Originally posted by JustAGame:


I didn't want to respond to his arguements directly for the reason I stated, it wasn't relevant to the purpose of my post. However, I will gladly hash over his remarks.

His evidence was specifically the views of "some Russian members on the forum". No matter how much he wants it to be otherwise, that group is not categorically recognized as experts on the topic. He could have said "my friend Bob says" or "my Daddy says" and it would still be true that his source is not recognized as an expert, or in this particular case, as a credible critic of historians. Unless we are given reason to accept the credibility of "my friend Bob", "my Daddy", "some Russians members on the forum" or "Russians on the internet", we will be justly shown by someone of the opposing view that our cited source is a hole in our arguement.

Where I completely agree with him is that "Russians on the internet" is indeed a very large group that is composed of many individuals with whom one would have to qualify each as a credible critic of historians for the entirety of the group to be so recognized. Indeed, when did "some Russians members of the forum" earn a universal recognition of being credible critics of historians? That was the point I was making with my original comment that "Russians on the internet are hardly credible critics of historians."

It was his arguement and incumbant upon him to prove his arguement. Since when have arguements been accepted as true until proven false? Since when have vague sources been granted "credibility" because the author relies upon them?

The irony here is that the purpose of his arguement was to discredit the source referenced in support of an opinion. The truth is that there are numerous critics of Suvurov who are widely accepted as expert enough to be credible critics of historians and they have been published doing just that. That doesn't mean they end the debate over the validity of the question Suvurov has popularized. But we at least have reason, as established by their credentials, that they are presenting reliable information.

The bottom line is that whether I quote him specifically with "some Russians on the forum" or paraphrase with "Russians on the internet" in the lost effort of trying to make the comment less personalized to the author, it is a vague source that enjoys neither universal recognition of expertise nor does he convey any more credentials than that they are "some Russians on the forum". Just as the author was pointing out a credibility issue with someone else's twice removed source, those of the opposing view have every right and should call to question vague sources used to support his views.

My son really loves it when I sing to him. Apparently, I have a wonderful voice and I really should be given a record contract.

Yes I know the argument I made was a weak one. The Oxford dictionary of Philosophy has this to say about presumtively plausible arguments-the link between the premisses and the conclusion is based on burden of proof, meaning that it is not known whether the conclusion is true or not, but if the premisses are true, that is enough of a provisional, practical basis for acting as though the conclusion were true, in the absence of evidence showing it to be false. Presumtively plausible argumnets are species of arguments that should be treated with caution, because of the provisional nature, making them subject to default, and even in some cases fallacious.

As I have shown, your claim of invalidating my argument based on the statement "Russians on the internet are not credible critics of historians" is a false claim. That statement cannot be logically verified nor empirically verified. It does not meet a certain burden of meaning, the verification principle. So you should drop it instead of making excuses like saying you were 'paraphrasing'. You were in fact omitting an important qualifier "some" leaving us with the distinct impression that you felt "(all) Russians...." You are correct only in the sense that my premise is questionable and weak, it is not however false.

As for this notion of being a "credible critic of historians", how does one achieve such lofty status? For instance, here we are discussing issues of truth, arguments and logic which are philosophical issues. I have a B.A in Philosophy and could certainly be called a "credible critic of philosophy". How about you?

[JustAGame]

Originally posted by moni kerr:


As for this notion of being a "credible critic of historians", how does one achieve such lofty status? For instance, here we are discussing issues of truth, arguments and logic which are philosophical issues. I have a B.A in Philosophy and could certainly be called a "credible critic of philosophy". How about you?

My BS was double major in Accounting and Business Administration, supplemented with minors in History and Political Science (My original double major choice before I realized it was not really likely that I would become a "Lobbyist"). Even still, I don't presume that my education is merit enough to be a credible and objective analyst of everything as accountants are called upon to do.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Hitler though, acquired a contempt and distrust toward the German High Command Staff. The attempted assasination didn't help any. All this led him to believe he was better than all of them, but he wasn't better than *ALL* of them. This leads eventually to the point where he takes away command authority from his field commanders to himself. The best example is the panzer divisions he didn't allow Rommel in the Normandy area to control, which resulted in these divisions not becoming involved within hours of the Normandy invasion.

By 1944 Hitler was *INSANE*. Insane people rarely make good commanders. But he was NOT insane all along. Ruthless, evil, yes. But not insane.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

His famous stand and die orders are another huge mistake, culminating in the destruction of Army Group Center in '44.

That order was not a mistake in 1941, in fact it was the ONLY way the German could survive the winter of 1941. That success, against the advice of the united General Staff played a big part in convincing Hitler that he knew best. This belief was shaken by Stalingrad (a defeat Hitler assumed personal responsability for, and rightly so, it WAS his fault) but reaffirmed by the disaster at Kursk, which was instigated, planned and implemented by the professionals. As Hitlers insanity progressed, he resorted to reiterating the orders that had saved the day in 1941, with increasingly disastrous results.

So, the geist of my point is that in 1944-45, Hitler is a lunatic, and as such an awful military commander. But the earlier, sane Hitler was really good. Not the best ever, but clearly a cut above most of his contemporaries.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Yes, destruction of armies was talked about first, but Leningrad and Moscow were explicit targets from the very beginning. Ironically, a person reading the quoted text above might reasonably come away with the idea that Moscow is priority #2, after Leningrad.

Agree, that is my conclusion as well. Leningrad was priority 1. Leningrad and the Baltic coast were targets for logistic reasons, Moscow was merely the follow up AFTER the destruction of the Red Army. And since Leningrad had not been reduced, an advance on Moscow was still out of the question. As Hitler saw it, the groundwork had still not been laid.

I think there can be no doubt that when Hitler decided to embark on the Ucrainian campaign it was because in and around Kiev was the single strongest undefeated force of the Red Army, and the resulting battle ended in the destruction of about half the remaining effectives of the Red Army. The aim was not geographical but military - that is why I say that any good commander without the benefit of hindsight would probably do the same mistake. (if indeed it was a mistake. I'm still not convinced it was.) Schwarzkopf did not drive for Baghdad - he surrounded the enemy forces in Kuwait instead.

[Yogi Yohan]

Originally posted by jager506:

Now for the idiotic blunders:
1) The original attack against France and the west was a dumb, unimaginative rehash of the Schlieffen Plan, which some believe would have failed as the Allies anticipated this. Hitler did not come up with that plan, but he certainly approved it. It was Manstein who came up with the Ardennes alternative after the original plans fell into Allied hands.

On the contrary, the Manstein plan would never have been approved if not for Hitlers support. Manstein was unable to sell it to his superiors until he had a personal interview with Hitler, who immediatly saw the benefits of the left-hook plan. The glory for that victory victory must be shared by Manstein, who devised the plan, and Hitler who recognised its merits (which the General Staff did not).

Agree on your other points, except Kursk was not Hitler's idea, nor did he like it very much, but he had temporary relinquished control to the pro's after his personal disaster at Stalingrad. Kursk in fact convinced Hitler that he DID know best after all.

[jager506]

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:


Agree on your other points, except Kursk was not Hitler's idea, nor did he like it very much, but he had temporary relinquished control to the pro's after his personal disaster at Stalingrad. Kursk in fact convinced Hitler that he DID know best after all.

Yes, Hitler was personally shaken after Stalingrad, and slowly starting to descend into insanity even then. Kursk was largely planned by the professionals, by it was supposed to happen immediately after the spring thaw (late April/early May 1943) not two months later, giving the Russians ample time to turn the area into an impregnable fortress. Yet Hitler as supreme commander agreed to postponing the attack at least 2 or 3 times. And even though he told Guderian "Every time I think of Kursk, my stomach rolls over".

Why then couldn't he have trusted his instincts? He could have ordered the cancellation of Kursk at any time. But because he was unable to accept that a well conducted strategic defense WITH strong panzer reserves (such as the Ostheer possessed prior to July 5) could very well have attained some form of stalemate in Russia, allowing him the possibility of reaching some arrangement with Stalin, he ordered it to go ahead anyway.