Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 122

Thread: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

  1. #21
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    Sorry, LON's post is historial nonsense and has as usual no quotes or any sources for his claims.
    So that doesn't actually make my claims wrong though. I actually did do a few quotes, STAVKA and Semyon Timoshenko.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    The Third Reich had extreme fuel problems since August 1944, so that for example the advance in the Ardennes was very slow, but they drove simply not on bicycles behind the tanks.
    The Third Reich had extreme fuel problems since 1941. In addition a severe loss of equipment as a result of Operation Typhoon also resulted on a reliance of pack horses. German supplies were mostly pulled up to the front by horses, especially on a local level where rail was impractical. This prevented panzer units from carrying out rapid advances since they had to wait for their supplies to be pulled up. They generally didn't have much fuel after 1942 to carry out many maneuvers. The Germans managed to acquire Italian oil reserves in 1943 after Italy was knocked out of the war. Other than that they relied on coal liquefaction which was not in large quantities and not efficient, very low octane. The Allies crippled German oil by destroying synthetic oil production facilities, coal facilities and carrying out bombardments of Romanian and Hungarian oil facilities. By 1944 the Allies were pushing on Alsace which was also an area of German oil and coal production. In general the Germans actually reduced mechanized equipment because they didn't have enough oil to supply them and so kept the oil for specific mechanized units and for panzers and airplanes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    Than to the nonsense a flexible defence was not possible and von Manstein was a disappointment:
    Nope. STAVKA themselves emphasized the desire to make German units carry out costly maneuvers from 1942-1944. They knew that flexible defense wasn't feasible because the Germans would simply run out of oil and be forced to halt, and then wait for resupply. Something which the German leadership also pointed out to these generals.

    "... we have to do all we can to make Germany increase her oil consumption and to keep the German armies out of the Caucasus" - Semyon Timoshenko, during Operation Typhoon

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    Third Battle of Charkov 1943:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Battle_of_Kharkov

    If the Wehrmacht hadn't wasted it limited reserves in the following Battle of Kursk a flexible defence would have beein possible:

    Following this meeting, Guderian continued to voice his concerns over an operation that would likely degrade the panzer forces that he had been attempting to rebuild. He considered the offensive, as planned, to be a misuse of the panzer forces, as it violated two of the three tenets he had laid out as the essential elements for a successful panzer attack.[n] In his opinion, the limited German resources in men and materiel should be conserved, as they would be needed for the pending defence of western Europe. In a meeting with Hitler on 10 May he asked,
    Is it really necessary to attack Kursk, and indeed in the east this year at all? Do you think anyone even knows where Kursk is? The entire world doesn't care if we capture Kursk or not. What is the reason that is forcing us to attack this year on Kursk, or even more, on the Eastern Front?
    Hitler replied, "I know. The thought of it turns my stomach." Guderian concluded, "In that case your reaction to the problem is the correct one. Leave it alone."[87][o]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
    Many of them disagreed with the Ardennes offensive in 1944 but by that point who even cares. The war was practically over. That they were correct here doesn't really matter, a broken clock can be right at least once.
    But for Kursk that is not the case. Manstein was for the Kursk offensive, he even helped to plan it. Kurt Zeitzler planned Operation Citadel and he was by all means a competent person.

    Guderian obviously doesn't understand the strategic situation. He is arguing for decisive battles and wars of annihilation, which isn't possible by 1943, let alone in Russia. Obviously Hitler's strategy was to secure Kursk and straighten the front line intended to absorb a Soviet offensive. The value itself is not in Kursk but rather in the encirclement of the 500,000 Soviet troops, which if lost would significantly hurt Stalin's manpower. Incidentally Stalin was also organizing battalions of women and children in 1943. The reason Operation Citadel failed was because the Soviets had in depth knowledge of these plans which they discovered through their extensive spy network and British code breaking.

    Telling me about sources... you're using Wikipedia as a source and their source is Guderian's memoirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    No Hitler didn't knew it better than his generals. The luck in the first part of WW II let him always gamble, when his generals were the opinion, that the offensive (Kursk, Ardennes) was a mistake and the troops should stay in reserve.
    The luck in the first part of the war? The Germans intentionally increased rearmament from 1938 onward. It isn't luck if you do it on purpose. If they are doing it on purpose they obviously realized that the particular thing was a factor.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 25, 2019 at 04:15 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  2. #22
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Cheney. View Post
    The narrative we all hear of course (from Manstien, Guderian, Rundstedt, and others) is that Hitler was a bumbling amateur who micromanaged his generals to insanity; who in addition to his meddling and temper tantrums could only see the ideological value or political consequences of a military objective. Had he only listened to the generals they say, the war might have turned out differently.
    Generals love to deflect military defeats on political leaders. Just watch how the Americans generals proceeds for Vietnam or Afghanistan. German generals were no different and did the same following the Great War.


    AH was overall a bold but inept commander in chief. He took many dubious military decisions, especially as the war took a bad trajectory for Germany, but also some good ones like during the soviet winter offensive of 1941-1942. Also some of his wrong military decision were shared by Wehrmacht and SS high officer like the decision to wait for Panerkamfwagen V Panther to launch Unternehmen Zidatelle.

    leaving aside piecemeal decisions, a fundamental flaw in his behavior as commander in chief was his highly aggressive and confrontational relationship with his high ranking officers. Indeed he executed an extensive number of them.

  3. #23
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,406

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Some facts against the thesis of armchair historians without scientific sources or at least war memories of leading german persons:

    German Fuel production 1939-1944:

    1939: 8,2 million tons (synthetic fuel: 2,2 million tons, 27%)
    1940: 7,6 million tons ( synthetic fuel: 3,348 million tons, 44%)
    1941: 10 million tons (synthetic fuel: 4,116 million tons, 41%)
    1942: 9,5 million tons (synthetic fuel: 4,920 million tons, 52%)
    1943: 11,3 million tons (synthetic fuel: 5,748 million tons, 51 %)
    1944: 6,83 million ton (synthetic fuel: 3,83 million tons, 56% )

    Sources:

    Dietrich Eichholtz: Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegswirtschaft. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1985, Band 2, S. 354.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsc...tisches_Benzin

    In 1943 there were twelve producing hydrogenation plants. The hydrogenation plants covered most of the fuel needs of the Wehrmacht and were the sole source of jet fuel for the Luftwaffe.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsc...tisches_Benzin

    So the Wehrmacht could have fight at the eastern front a flexible defense strategy in 1943.

    Different opinion is baseless talk.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  4. #24

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I don't really think that military personnel are qualified to make political decisions.
    I was implicitly referring to other branches of administration. In short, consulting the relevant experts on every field and allowing them to speak their mind without the fear of severe repercussions. In Nazi Germany, that wasn't always the case. AH and his bootlickers made plenty of dumb decisions, sometimes ignoring the advice of others.


    Plus this idea can't really be true because as we saw the Germans achieved plenty of success throughout 1939 and 1941.
    I would say that is due to some very obvious factors, i.e. the supply lines still being manageable, resources still being there, the enemy being in a transitory state of confusion, Stalin and his crew making lots of bad decisions, and the USA not being actively involved.


    The Soviets did as well from 1942 to 1945. Mao defeated Chiang Kai-shek from 1948 to 1950 but also gave MacArthur an ass whooping in Korea. So if none of these guys were listening to their subordinates how did they win so many times? Either listening to subordinates isn't as important as people say (to be honest most of the examples are anecdotal and the claims in those cases aren't even true) or they probably did listen. Besides we see this with democratic regimes all the time, an immediate example, supposedly because I am skeptical, is that Chiang Kai-shek didn't listed to Bai Chongxi during the Siping campaign in 1946.

    There really isn't an example of this being the case either. All the most famous examples which people provide are actually wrong.
    It's not the only factor but I think it's relevant. Obviously there are others, some listed above, but also the ideologically driven actions. The Nazis were too racist for their own good. If they'd been more magnanimous (and less genocidal) towards subject populations in the east, they might've had more sympathies there, and more manpower to draw from. I mean, Stalin set the bar really low, so they could've succeeded in winning most of the "hearts and minds".
    Stalin and Mao also provide enough non-military examples of "not listening to advisors/common sense" (or not having decent advisors in the first place, due to their tyrannical policies. Same is true for Hitler to some extent) that led to disasters.
    In any case, I don't think you can ignore non-military factors playing into this, which will have an effect on military performance and capacity later on. Exhibit A: the system of National Socialism (set up by, you guessed it, Hitler) drove away many brilliant minds, some were even actively thrown out. Totalitarian group think stifles innovation and science, it's just as true of National Socialists as it is of SJWs. Et cetera.


    Sounds too subjective so I can't really say how Stalin and Hitler compare to Genghis Khan.
    But the latter view isn't really the case. If anything it was these generals which didn't appreciate strategic reality. They thought that they could win the war by attacking Moscow. Where as the Stalingrad campaign is completely misrepresented. Not just the engagement within the city but the far higher likelihood that Case Blue would lead to a German victory. How do we know this? Because the Soviets themselves said it, from the start Stalin's strategy was to protect the Baku oilfields which is why he diverted forces to hold the Don River while the Germans were simultaneously carrying out Operation Typhoon. STAVKA pointed out the need to defend the Volga more so than Moscow, in their own words "the loss of Moscow would not constitute a major setback to the war effort".

    The other thing that everyone clings to is flexible defense. But without really understanding what this entails it makes perfect sense. Except that no one had the means to carry it out. Even the Soviets themselves stated that it was preferable for the Germans to carry out maneuvers so that they would outrun their own supplies, especially that they would run out of oil. What the Soviets actually dreaded was for a German general to dig in and carry out a campaign of static defense.
    Like I said, I'm sure the generals blundered and shifted the blame, but that's why the CiC bears the responsibility in the first place. Hitler proved that he shouldn't have been left in charge of anything. He had a lot of control, it's not like he was some puppet emperor or something.

  5. #25
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    Some facts against the thesis of armchair historians without scientific sources or at least war memories of leading german persons:
    >calls someone an armchair historian
    >uses memoirs of proven liars as a source

    Quote Originally Posted by Harley_Quinn View Post
    German Fuel production 1939-1944:

    1939: 8,2 million tons (synthetic fuel: 2,2 million tons, 27%)
    1940: 7,6 million tons ( synthetic fuel: 3,348 million tons, 44%)
    1941: 10 million tons (synthetic fuel: 4,116 million tons, 41%)
    1942: 9,5 million tons (synthetic fuel: 4,920 million tons, 52%)
    1943: 11,3 million tons (synthetic fuel: 5,748 million tons, 51 %)
    1944: 6,83 million ton (synthetic fuel: 3,83 million tons, 56% )

    Sources:

    Dietrich Eichholtz: Geschichte der Deutschen Kriegswirtschaft. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1985, Band 2, S. 354.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsc...tisches_Benzin

    In 1943 there were twelve producing hydrogenation plants. The hydrogenation plants covered most of the fuel needs of the Wehrmacht and were the sole source of jet fuel for the Luftwaffe.

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsc...tisches_Benzin

    So the Wehrmacht could have fight at the eastern front a flexible defense strategy in 1943.

    Different opinion is baseless talk.
    Reduction in vehicles and an increase in horses were the result of oil shortages. Which led to the pace of any advance to decrease and a significant gap between mechanized units and infantry. In other words no maneuver war and no way to make a kesselschalcht. Your raw numbers don't prove anything. Source: Ostkrieg page 83

    General Adolf von Schell asked for the Wehrmacht to reduce motorization as a result of oil shortages. The Germans had to carry out oil rationing in Germany and in occupied territories while having most of their troops go on foot or bicycles and supplies get pulled by horse carts and wagons. Source: Wages of Destruction page 412

    The Germans were unable to meet neither domestic nor military demands for oil production. In 1940 alone they consumed over 9 million tonnes domestically, the Romanian oilfields produced only 5 million tonnes. By your own account they produced on average 10 million tonnes of synthetic fuel. Except that we know for a fact that they reduced their use of vehicles so how would they transport it to their units on the front.
    But more to the point adding in military consumption of oil (vehicles, tanks, airplanes, ships and u-boats) plus domestic consumption that number is already at about 20 million tonnes. Where as the Germans are only producing about 15 million tonnes from Romania and from the synthetic process at the most, during the best of times. The latter of which requires coal liquefaction and only produces low octane fuel. The Caucasus oilfields pumped out some 25 million tonnes and is what the Soviets relied on for their war effort. In fact they pumped so much that in the subsequent decades they produced significantly less and eventually led to their discovering massive amounts of oil in Siberia.

    Anyone who disagrees can't do basic math.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; February 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  6. #26
    Diocle's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Amon Amarth
    Posts
    12,572

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Hitler was not a general, he was much more than a general, he was the great shaman of the last century, his speeches were hypnotic, his visions were like shared collective hallucinations, his dreams were visions that opened wide gigantic perspectives on horrid hells and possible havens, he dreamed and dreamed so hard that his dreams were more real than reality itself for millions Germans (and not only Germans), Hitler's vision of future was so intimately and so intensely German and popular that nothing and nobody could stand on its way! The generals were just citizens with all the interests typical of common citizens: family, career, a nice nest egg in the bank and a beautiful country house in which spending an honorable retiree life, while Hitler was beyond all this crap, he could see the future and the past, all the possible futures and all the pasts converged in that metallic voice and in those clear eyes, as innocent and fascinating as death itself, the sound of that voice was directly coming from the abyss of the historical collective unconscious of the German nation and the words coming with it were like magical spells, with the strength of mesmerizing whole nations and perhaps even some of his victims and enemies, so, what could they do, those old, petty Prussian aristocrats, those poor petty bourgeois to stop that incredible and intense energy emanating by the last ancient Germanic shaman of Europe? Nothing, apart giving him all their honour and all their loyalty, but this was not enough.

  7. #27
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Hitler was ... the great shaman ...
    He was good at propaganda, but shaman for less than half his people. He peddled fear and paid for guns and butter with suicidal economics, and when he ran out of money he turned thief and crashed his country. He certainly conducted his campaigns like a shaman, an hallucinating primitive with little understanding of modern war.

    I have no adoration for this bent little man. He destroyed his country. His forces behaved like beasts at his behest, and he stained Germany's honour with a deep stain. He remains Germany's greatest enemy.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  8. #28
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,121

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    The real course of events went like this:

    1. Re-arm, the West is soft and will let us. (Check)
    1.5 Geez the West is soft, lets annex a bunch of border regions (Check, and they'e totally not angry and will let us annex Poland)
    2. Gain a border with the Soviets (via Poland, no one likes them), the West is soft and will let us...wait why are you guys angry?.
    2.5 Smash France, make a deal with the French right wing, Britain will surrender to the dominant European power like they always do...wait....
    3. Invade the Soviets (yay, two front war!), the West is soft and will either support us or join us...wait they are supporting the Soviets? Better declare war on the US too...
    4. Profit?...nah better perform some atrocities that actually reduce our ability to win...

    The basic plan was sound, germany had a chance of some success. The plan as enacted was insane.
    Add Points:
    1.1: Destroy the own economy by the armament programm
    1.2: Incoming massive Inflation and massive lack of foreign Currency to buy rawmaterial
    1.3: Some bad Harvests and not enough foreign currency to buy Soy for the Pigs
    1.4: Making everything worse with Goering as chief of the Fiveyear-Plan

    @Harley: Fuel production may have risen until 44, but also has consumption. Oda has already cited Tozes "The Wages of Destruction", a real Eyeopener
    A think that shouldn`t be underanstimated is the distribution of the Fuel, the rolling material (trains, wagons, even the railways) where in a insufficient shape in 1939... and it became worse.
    Trucks were lacking and a horror to maintain, since alot of those where either civilian or captured.

    @Diocle: You have a way with words, have some rep.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    It feels like he was gaming the system, much like I do once I understand how a computer simulation works; hoping to keep it going under deficit spending until you can make that great bank heist.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  10. #30
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K View Post
    It feels like he was gaming the system, much like I do once I understand how a computer simulation works; hoping to keep it going under deficit spending until you can make that great bank heist.
    I don't want to derail the thread with economics (albeit somewhat relevant) but he was applying a Socialist concept known as "labor theory". Perhaps the reason he failed was because he didn't go full Stalin. But then perhaps the reason Stalin succeeded was because he had raw materials in abundance. Looking at the German economy doesn't really make sense if we only do so from the point of view of Capitalism (aka consumerism and financing). On the other hand it is hard to avoid because they still kept the market. Something which Lenin severely restricted and which Stalin attempted to abolish. I'm severely oversimplifying it just to get the main idea across.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  11. #31

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Speaking of which, there was the Volkswagon scheme, and probably other ways in that the National Socialists got the proletariat to reinvest their savings back into the economy.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  12. #32
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    A "hands off" planned economy similar to China and other currently existing economies. Lenin and Stalin 'failed' and caused mass famine and death. Mussolini and Hitler wanted to do it the Right way. Hitler more so than Mussolini I suppose, but lots of it due to compromise with the Bourgeoisie. It all depends on how we define failure or success.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  13. #33
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    In your list there a re lot of let's blame the dead things.

    Failure to seize the initiative at Dunkirk


    On a careful read the pause originated with the General Staff. Hitler may have amplified it but senior commanders were rattled a bit by a British armored attack and the how badly their supply lines were stretched. Beyond that with their backs to the wall err channel both the French and British were putting up stiff resistance and the RN simply organized a very good evacuation and the RAF release a bit more air cover.

    Bombing London over airfields (Sealion was also a joke)


    The RAF could always avoid the attrition. Germany had no effective strategic abilty to kill the RAF over the UK. You sort of have to pin that everyone involved German Aircraft development from 1930 forward. I suppose if Walther Wever had not died they might have had the bomber they needed but would he have seen the light for the escort fighter it needed as well. After all the UK and US whiffed on that one. But the fact Ural Bomber died with him kind of shows an institution failure not just Hitler. Sealion was a joke as a practical invasion plan, but as a bluff to maybe scare the UK while he still had a pact with Stalin and FDR was still facing immense opposition to involvement... I was OK as long as it was always a bluff.

    Putting Goering in charge of the Luftwaffe


    OK blunder of the first order. Erhard Milch might have been better but even he came late to the need for strategic reach and only after failure.

    Not retreating from Stalingrad


    Well yes but one could argue the bigger failure was not fight a defensive war of attrition while Germany still had a clear mastery of maneuver warfare at the operational level and wait for mobilization to allow for a offensive in 1943

    Not supporting Rommel with fuel


    Nope - nien, not. The mistake was supporting Rommel at beyond just defending Libya. The men, fuel, supplies, aircraft (especially those) and every bullet wasted trying to more in North Africa (where Rommel could never get to Alexandria and it would not be decisive in any way anyway) was a resources that should have been spent on Eastern Front the only decisive area of the war for Germany. Rommel bears the blame for that and deflecting resources away from taking malta minimal operation that would have hurt the UK. Also in his arrogance he persistently claimed Italy had leakers in the Navy to explain Italian naval losses rather than considering it the enforced switch to enigma that was exposing Italian convoys. Ironically the UK had not cracked the Italian naval codes.

    Devaluing and underestimating sea power


    How so? Germany had no ability to actually build a surface fleet to compete with the RN. So then just more subs but again a resource race they can't win (*). Once the UK would not negotiate and the US more less became a undeclared co belligerent via LL and other measures, Hitler really only had one option. He a very good operational army (with zero amphibious assault ability) and a tactical air force, the only way to decisively alter the world balance of power was to bet on defeating the USSR in a quick war. Which you have to admit after watching the Russian fiasco in Finland and rather poor performance in Poland - none of His generals were arguing hard or at all that it was not worth a shot.

    * with the two ocean navy act in play the US will simply enforce its line of neutrality right up to a few feet from South Hampton.

    Making the Me262 a dive bomber


    Mah. The engines were still crap. More importantly the US and UK had a very good sense of its development and progress via reading the mail of Japanese diplomatic corps. Move it up and the US and UK would simply have prioritized their own jets and the yest the 262 might have been better than the Meteor, but the Vampire not so much.

    Not obtaining alliances with Spain or Turkey


    Spain was a wreck. An alliance would have required shaving skin off Italy and Vichy to make Franco happy [OH and Franco of course recognized Spain would be blockaded so he kinda wanted fuel and food from Germany something it really did not have]. As it was Spain provided tungsten, sub basing and the Blue Division/legion and a 'friendly' place to send espionage agents through. The Blue Division was likely all the motivated fascists Spain could come up with willing to fight on the Russian Front. Would some unmotivated conscripts have helped around Stalingrad or folded like the the other allied forces. Although that is unfair because Germany failed to be the arsenal of Nazism and the Italian and Romanian units were woefully under equipped.



    Again What exactly Could Germany have offered Turkey?

    Declaring war on the US


    Not really. FDR was pushing every boundary he could to provoke a indecent to a get a war. So Germany does not declare war? The US is all Japan first, it still has all the wartime production freedoms and draft and simply garrisons India and Australia and fights the Pacific war itself while all UK manpower goes to the UK.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  14. #34
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Morifea View Post
    Add Points:
    1.1: Destroy the own economy by the armament programm
    1.2: Incoming massive Inflation and massive lack of foreign Currency to buy rawmaterial
    1.3: Some bad Harvests and not enough foreign currency to buy Soy for the Pigs
    1.4: Making everything worse with Goering as chief of the Fiveyear-Plan
    ...Crazy, right? but of course he needed to be crazy to even form his party...and we're back to the old problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morifea View Post
    @Harley: Fuel production may have risen until 44, but also has consumption. Oda has already cited Tozes "The Wages of Destruction", a real Eyeopener
    A think that shouldn`t be underanstimated is the distribution of the Fuel, the rolling material (trains, wagons, even the railways) where in a insufficient shape in 1939... and it became worse.
    Trucks were lacking and a horror to maintain, since alot of those where either civilian or captured.
    This is a huge point and well made.

    IIRC German fuel reserves were tiny: French reserves and production provided a bump got them part way into Russia but by 1943 the US were running daytime raids (blind courage there) in tandem with the RAF night raids that cut systemic efficiency radically. The crisis of the 9th SS running out of fuel before they swept the Ardennes in late 1944 was not an isolated incident, it was a continuing crisis as the war progressed.

    German successes came chiefly in 1939-1941, before anyone's economies clicked into gear. After production ramps up the Wehrmacht has one good campaign, Fell Blau, and a sideshow success in Africa with Rommel dancing past the end of his supply chain at El Alamein while the British play musical chairs with the commanders in Egypt.

    Nazi Germany could not win a numbers game. Its snatched some surprise victories early on that even Hitler did not expect and then played on as if thy would continue. It was suicidal lunacy.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #35

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    First seven words in the thread, explains everything quite well.

  16. #36
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayer View Post
    Then why didn't Stalin interfere with his generals from 1942 onward?
    Because Stalin already had a capable military workhorse called Zhukov, whom Stalin felt he could rely and control completely. It is same as how Lincoln stopped intervening military operation after Grant became General-in-Chief, whom Lincoln felt he could trust completely.

    So in the end, it is really TRUST issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  17. #37

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    First seven words in the thread, explains everything quite well.
    Your point being?

  18. #38

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Self evident.
    That you cant understand 7 words seems to my point to you.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    Self evident.
    That you cant understand 7 words seems to my point to you.
    So you're content with just hurling abuse at the OP and now at me as well? Or do you have an argument to make, somewhere? I do wonder, what is it with people on this board and trying to exonerate Hitler, of all people? Not that I mind the break from the usual obnoxious Stalin/USSR apologism, but this isn't any better, or more sensible, than that.

  20. #40
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,121

    Default Re: Did Hitler know better than his generals?

    @athanaric: My word.
    @Hanny: Why so aggressive? Dick Cheney opened a very interesting thread with his question... most, if not all of his Threads are very interesting and have a well made opening post.
    Most Users on this side can take him as example.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •