Kilgore Trout wrote:For "Felix C":
Your concern seems to be primarily with Generals of divisions. There, I agree the overwhelming majority of German generals seemed to perform at least competently. But what is the real reason behind the sacking of von Bock? Was it purely political, or due to a perceived error in how he led Heersgruppe Nord, and so did not seize Leningrad. Simlarly, on Von Kleist: was he sacked due to not seizing the Caucasus oil fields? As a specialist in organisational behaviour (industrial psychology), I see the problem as the way bureaucracies - whether governmental, private busniess, or the military - justify their acts. Often, the real reason is masked behind a concoction. Sometimes, sacking is given an operational reason when it was really a personality clash. Other times, it can be the opposite. Usually, the reason given will be self-serving to whomever caused the change, or to the organisation as a whole.
Well there were more division commanders than army or army group and that level of command would have a presumably lesser instance of political tainting.